Monday, August 24, 2015

Philippines and Japan over China

Philippines and Japan over China
by Patricia Piramide

China as a rising power is seeking and making its way to be at par with today’s considered hegemon, United States of America. But, unfortunately, China’s considered manner of reaching the top is mostly through aggression. Now, China is making an issue about their territorial claims that have already affected its relationship with other countries, such as Philippines and Japan. 

Japan and China has its conflict due to their competing claims of the eight uninhabited islands and rocks known as Senkaku islands in Japan and Diaoyu islands in China. The islands have a total of 7 sq km in area and lie north-east of Taiwan, east of the Chinese mainland and south-west of Japan's southern-most prefecture, Okinawa.

Japan based its claim of the islands to that of January 14, 1895 when Japan erected a sovereignty marker and formally incorporated the islands into Japanese territory. And that prior to the establishment of the sovereignty marker, Japan says it surveyed the islands for 10 years in the 19th Century and determined that they were uninhabited.

On the other hand, China and based its claim when the said islands have been part of its territory since ancient times, serving as important fishing grounds administered by the province of Taiwan.
These eight inhabited islands and rocks: Senkaku islands as known in Japan and Diaoyu islands as in China matter because they are close to important shipping lanes, offer rich fishing grounds and lie near potential oil and gas reserves. Up to now, the territorial dispute between China and Japan is still unsettled.

Another unsettled conflict of China with that of another country, the Philippines, which also involves territorial dispute, is the claim of Spratlys or the South China Sea as known for China and West Philippine Sea for the Philippines.

China claims by far the largest portion of territory - an area defined by the "nine-dash line" which stretches hundreds of miles south and east from its most southerly province of Hainan. China also uses historical accounts to legalize their claim and to which they believe that its right to the area goes back centuries to when the Paracel and Spratly island chains were regarded as integral parts of the Chinese nation, and in 1947 it issued a map detailing its claims.

Philippines invokes its geographical proximity based on UNCLOS 200 nautical mile Exclusive Economic Zone to the Spratly Islands as the main basis of its claim for part of the grouping. 
Some of the reasons why there are a lot of claimants of Spratly islands are due to its rich reserves of natural resources: hydrocarbons, abundance of marine resources such as fish. Also, due to commercial shipping purposes. 

Now, Japan and the Philippines teamed up against China during a regional security forum most probably because both Japan and the Philippines are undergoing territorial disputes with China. With their cooperation now, four sources with knowledge of the matter told Reuters, a news agency company, that Japan was looking to offer three Beechcraft TC-90 King Air planes that could be fitted with basic surface and air surveillance radar.

Japan wants to give planes to the Philippines that Manila could use for patrols in the South China Sea, sources said, a move that would deepen Tokyo's security ties with the Southeast Asian nation most at odds with Beijing over the disputed waterway. Actually, Tokyo has no claims in the waterway, but is worried Beijing's new islands will extend Chinese military reach into sea lanes through which much of Japan's ship-borne trade passes.

To resolve these issues through peace talks and/or bilateral agreements should have been much better if only the Chinese government could have been more cooperative and open-minded in addressing and equally compensating each and everyone’s interests for the common good of all the parties concerned.

Word Count – 643

Rohingya

ROHINGYA
by Athena Cara Yauder
“There is a reason why violence, anger and war are spreading in this time when realpolitik has superseded humanity, when politics is perceived as oppression and when countries ally themselves around self- interest rather than love. The people of a country have for years been living under persecution and facing genocide before the eyes of theworld, and the world knows this, but still says nothing. This means the problem is one of conscience, not evidence.” -Harun Yahya
In the country of Myanmar (Burma), where majority of its people are Buddhists, Rohingya Muslims have always been considered as an ethnic Muslim minority. They form the largest single group of “stateless” people in the world; making them considered as the world’s most persecuted minority. Burma has numerous ethnic groups of which there are nearly 140 ethnic races are living within 60% of its area and Rohingya is one of them, which majority are living in Arakan. (Islam, 2006)
Atrocities and the practice of genocide against the Rohingya minority with manifest intention to destroy the Rohingya people from their ancestral homeland of Arakan/Burma have long been enduring. This large scale persecution through ethnic cleansing and genocidal action of the Myanmar/Burmese government against these people has caused them to flee the country to seek refuge against humanitarian abuses. According to a non- profit group Physicians for Human Rights, in their 2013, there have been human rights abuses committed by the Burmese military. Rohingya Muslims have been long denied evidently of their citizenship and freedom and worse, even of their basic rights such as of having food, access to medical treatments, right to family, education and right to movement. (BBC News, 2015) They have been forced to leave since Burmese independence in 1948 and are now mostly found in Burma’s neighbouring countries such as Bangladesh, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and even in the lands of Malaysia, Indonesia, and Thailand. There were unprecedented refugee influxes mostly in Bangladesh once in 1978 and the other in between 1991- 1992 with constant trickle of refugee exodus all along. (Islam, 2006) In search for better life, many relied on trafficking and smuggling networks with some of these countries. (The Guardian, 2015)
The situation in Myanmar has gotten worse as its government had just recently (last 2010) transitioned from a military- led government to a somewhat “more” democratic system; causing violence against Muslims in its worst form. Despite the effort of the Rohingya Muslims to seek for help from these countries such as Malaysia and Indonesia; initially, they did not approve for any extension of help the refugees, claiming that they are financially unable to accept these unfortunate people. It was only last 2012 that the world became more concerned with their situation following the violent attacks and acts of arson to the Rohingya Muslims in the Rakhine State. The United Nations last 2012 have finally advocated for the protection of the rights of the Rohingya Muslims, on April 2013, the Rakhine State Conflicts Investigation Commission has strengthened security actions in Rakhine, and also there has been a help from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNCHR), helping local authorities provide assistance to the migrants. Malaysia and Indonesia have finally opened their doors to accept the migrants for one year, or until they can be resettled or repatriated with the help of international agencies. (Rappler, 2015) With the intervention of the from the international community (Association of the South- East Asian Nations, and United Nations), the Myanmar government had somehow taken some action plan to also create a resolution to the escalating conflict and restore back the peace and harmony within its territory, through ensuring justice and communal coordination. However, just as what Yahya (2014) noted in his article from what Phil Robertson, deputy director for Asia at Human Rights Watch has expressed, the plan is extremely disconcerting; the fact that whichever of the two options in the resolution they have introduced to the United Nations, still it will give the Rohingya no rights whatsoever and make them helpless prisoners.
Despite the country’s transition of its government ruling, anti- Muslim chauvinism is unfortunately still very evident indeed. The way they have been treating people have given many reasons to be more prone to humanitarian abuse and violence; leading them to submit to any kind of transaction without considering the legality, just to survive, giving advantage to criminals to profit from them, knowing that these hopeless people no longer have any option. Despite some actions from the members of ASEAN, it is believed that there are actually no sanctions being imposed directly on the Myanmar government, afraid that it might alter and risk commercial and even economic relations. 740
SOURCES:
BBC News. (2015, June 19). BBC. Retrieved August 21, 2015, from BBC News Website: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-pacific-12990563
BBC News. (2015, June 10). BBC. Retrieved August 21, 2015, from BBC News Website: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-33007536
Islam, N. (2006, October 5). Arakan Rohingya National Organization (ARNO). Retrieved August 21, 2015, from ARNO: http://www.rohingya.org/portal/index.php/learn-about-rohingya.html
Rappler. (2015, May 27). RapplerIQ Newsbreak. Retrieved August 21, 2015, from Rappler.com: http://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/iq/93786-fast-facts-rohingya
The Guardian. (2015, June 14). The Guardian. Retrieved August 21, 2015, from The Guardian Website: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/14/un-concern-at-bangladesh-plan-to-move-thousands-of-rohingya-to-flooded-island
Yahya, H. (2014, December 1). Defeaning silence over Rohingya Issue. Retrieved August 21, 2015, from Arakan Rohingya National Organisation (ARNO): http://www.rohingya.org/portal/index.php/scholars/68-harun-yahya-/1096-deafening-silence-over-rohingya-issue.html

Japan-Philippines Economic Partnership Agreement

Japan-Philippines Economic Partnership Agreement
by Daniel Orin Levi Alatraca

Brief Background

                The Japan-Philippines Economic Partnership Agreement (JPEPA) is an economic partnership agreement concerning bilateral investment and free trade agreement between Japan and the Philippines. It was signed by former Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi and former Filipino President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo in Helsinki, Finland on September 9, 2006.

                JPEPA is a comprehensive bilateral trade and investment agreement between Japan and the Philippines aimed at increasing trade and investment opportunities between the two economies. It is the first bilateral free trade agreement (FTA) for the Philippines after 50 years. Other than the Philippines, Japan signed Free Trade Agreements with other economies (Singapore, Mexico, Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, and Brunei) and is on various phases of FTA negotiations with three other economies (South Korea, Vietnam, and India).

Trade and Investment with Japan

Japan is the second largest trading partner of the Philippines next to the US. The leading Philippine exports to Japan consist of electronic products, woodcraft furniture, and ignition wiring sets, fresh bananas, and iron ores. Our exports to Japan are asparagus, bananas, papayas, nata de coco, mangoes, chicken, shrimps and prawns, and yellowfin tuna. The leading Philippine imports from Japan consist of electronic products, industrial machinery and equipment, transport equipment, iron and steel and electrical machinery.

Japan is the Philippines’ largest source of foreign direct investments (FDI) in 2005, but slipped to third place behind the United States and Korea in 2006. Under JPEPA, the Philippines and Japan agreed to accord national treatment and most-favored-nation treatment to investors of each Party. This basically means that Japanese investors in the Philippines would be accorded the same privileges and rights as Filipino investors in economic sectors where they are allowed and vice-versa. Furthermore, Filipino nationals would be allowed to practice their profession in Japan subject to certain conditions. The list of professions included are: legal services, accounting and taxation services, architectural and engineering services, computer-related services, advertising and management consulting services, translation and interpretation services, services incidental to agriculture, Audio-visual services, higher education services, tourism and travel services, entertainment services (theatre, live bands), and maritime transport services.

Issues

                One of the main concerns regarding JPEPA is the possibility of having Japan export their waste products and hazardous materials to the Philippines. Such products are included in Article 29 of the agreement, which defines "originating goods”. Under Article 18 of the agreement, both Japan and the Philippines shall either "reduce or eliminate its customs duties," "eliminate other duties or charges of any kind imposed on or in connection with the importation," and take part in "improving market access conditions" for originating goods. JPEPA’s stipulations on the trade of goods and services also set tariff lines between the two countries. The agreement provisions also eases the market access of Philippine products to Japan, boasting that semi-conductors and electronics industry, automotive parts, furniture, and garments industry will benefit the most with the ratification of the agreement. Environmentalists also cry foul over this provision, stating that various laws are bound to be violated if the agreement pushes through.

Aside from local laws, one international treaty is also said to be a direct contradiction to the JPEPA. The Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal was ratified in 1989 by 133 countries and is currently adopted by 170 countries, including Japan and the Philippines. It is the most comprehensive global environmental treaty on hazardous and other wastes, addressing cleaner production, hazardous waste minimization and controls on the movement of these wastes.

References:
Agreement Between the Republic of the Philippines and Japan for an Economic Partnership. Full text of the Japan-Philippines Economic Partnership Agreement. The Daily PCIJ. Accessed on 15 April 2008. Retrieved from http://en.wikipilipinas.org/index.php/Japan-Philippines_Economic_Partnership_Agreement_(JPEPA). 24 August, 2015
Alecks P. Pabico (25 October 2006) JPEPA to encourage trade in hazardous and toxic waste. The Daily PCIJ. Accessed on 16 April 2008. Retrieved from http://en.wikipilipinas.org/index.php/Japan-Philippines_Economic_Partnership_Agreement_(JPEPA). 24 August, 2015

https://philforeignpolicy.wordpress.com/issues/

Cebu City Sister-City Relations

Cebu City Sister-City Relations
by Dinah Joy Oro

The City of Cebu has been having sister-city relations with other cities for many years already. It has created relations with cities in the Philippines and international cities as well.  Sister city relations are formed to promote friendship among cities and to establish cultural and economic exchanges. This strengthens ties and encourages cooperation between and among cities.  This also lets Cebu City learn new and perhaps more effective means in improving the condition of the city and its people.

Within the country, Cebu City has signed sisterhood agreements with Manila City; Santa Josefa, Agusan del Sur; Calamba, Laguna; Burgos, Ilocos Sur; Angeles City, Pampanga; Tangub City, Misamis Occidental; Ormoc City; Talisay City; Lapu-Lapu City; Mandaue City, Palayan City, Toledo City and Laoag City.

For the international cities, the city has established relations with Haarlemmermeer, the Netherlands; Kaohsiung City, Taiwan; Yeosu City, South Korea; Xiamen, China; Honolulu City, USA; Chula Vista, California, USA; Paramata, Australia; Kitchener, Canada; Salinas City, California; Kortrijk, Belgium; Vladivostok, Russia; Barcelona, Spain; Brisbane, Australia; Rio de Janiero, Brazil; Yokohama, Japan; Sabrosa, Portugal; Thessaloniki, Greece.

Among the mentioned international sister-cities, six or seven of these are active. These cities include Haarlemmermeer, Yoesu City, Xiamen, Paramata, Kortrijk, Yokohama, and Sabrosa. The other cities are considered dormant. This is according to Ms. Sheida Henry, the Executive Assistant of Councilor Cuenco.

The most recent agreement that Cebu City has signed is with Thessaloniki, Greece. It is stated in its resolution that “The establishment of a sister city relationship with the government of Thessaloniki, Greece is favorable to the development of the city of Cebu in the launching of programs of cooperation that promotes contact and exchange of experiences, good practice measures and information by both parties”. It is also said in the agreement that “both parties will strive to the utmost to develop their mutual potential, with the aim of achieving greater, effective, egalitarian, and mutually beneficial cooperation.”
Also last April 2015, the city government of Cebu and the city of Yokohama, Japan renewed the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) which expired on March 2015. The MOA is effective for another three years, March 2015 to March 2018. This renews the Technical Cooperation for Sustainable Development in which the parties executed a city-to-city cooperation wherein Yokohama City shall provide advice for promoting the eco-city development of Cebu City.

Hopefully, these sister-city relations that Cebu City has will truly flourish. These collaborations would help in the development and success of all the parties involved. Cities with different backgrounds and cultures would be able to understand, learn, and support each other.

To get more information on the sister-city relations of Cebu City, one can communicate with the office of Councilor James Anthony Cuenco who is the chairman of the Cebu City council’s committee on tourism, local and international relations, and arts and culture. Another way is through the Sister City Commission under former congressman Tony Cuenco. Their offices are located at the Cebu City Hall. 





INTERNATIONAL SISTER CITIES:
1. Haarlemmermeer, The Netherlands
·         Resolution No. 1706
·         Resolution 995 (December 2, 1992)
2. Kaohsiung City, Taiwan
·         Resolution No. 229 (February 6, 1969)
3. Yeosu City, South Korea
·         Resolution No. 652 (October 23, 1996)
4. Xiamen, China
·         Resolution No. 914 (April 1983)
5. Honolulu City, United States of America
·         (May 12, 2008)
6. Chula Vista, California, United States of America
·         Resolution No. 00-3325
7. Seattle City, Washington, United States of America
·         Resolution No. 110
8. Paramata, Australia
·         Resolution No. 3295
9. Kitchener, Canada
·         Resolution No. 2203
·         Resolution No. 2164
10. Salinas City, California
·         Resolution No. 1213 (June 24, 1991)
·         Resolution No. 287 (May 1997)
 11. Kortrijk, Belgium
·         Letter of Partnership
Signed on May 17, 2005
12. Vladivostok, Russia
·         Resolution No. 174
·         Resolution 713 (September 6 1995)
13. Barcelona, Spain
·         Agreement of Friendship and Cooperation
·         (November 6, 2008)
14. Brisbane, Australia
·         Protocol of Intent
·         Resolution No. 1111
15. Rio de Janiero, Brazil
·         Protocol of Intent
·         Resolution No. 738
16. Yokohama, Japan
·         (March 2015)
17. Sabrosa, Portugal
·         Sister-City Agreement
(October 2, 2014)
18. Thessaloniki, Greece




(Source: Ms. Sheida Henry, SP Cuenco’s Office, Cebu City Hall, Cebu City)

ASEAN Political Security Community

ASEAN Political Security Community
by Felippe Victor Rafael Baricuatro

The ASEAN Political Security Community or the APSC is second of what comprises the ASEAN integration. It aims to inform ASEAN citizens as to what political security is, what it holds and the problems that are challenging it. While ASEAN has  been well off in the economic and socio-cultural aspects of its integration, ASEAN faces recent problems in its security, both in terms of traditional and non-traditional security.

First is its recent issue of the Rohingya crisis. The Rohingya people are a Muslim ethnic minority group residing in the Rakhine state, formerly known as Arakan. The Rohingya people are considered “stateless entities”, as the Myanmar government has been refusing to recognise them as one of the ethnic groups of the country. For this reason, the Rohingya people lack legal protection from the Government of Myanmar, are regarded as mere refugees from Bangladesh, and face strong hostility in the country—often described as one of the most persecuted people on earth. Once again ASEAN was criticized for its handling of the crisis. While other ASEAN states provided humanitarian assistance such as the Philippines offering to shelter 3,000 "boat people" from Myanmar and Bangladesh and Thailand's effort to give humanitarian assistance to the Rohingyans, it is ASEAN's failure to address it to it's core which is Myanmar's discrimination and hostility against this minority that prevents this crisis from cooling down.

Another issue it faces which is now more in the hard security side of things is China's extensive claim and occupation on the South China Sea. China has been alarmingly and aggressively occupying islands that supposedly are territories of some ASEAN states, namely the Philippines and Vietnam.  While China has been at the door step of each affected country, ASEAN has only recently taken action on this crisis. It has expressed its stance on China's aggression and has urged China to settle things diplomatically. While it has expressed its stance, a clear form of action is yet to be seen.


Since ASEAN moves by consensus decision making and values the norm of sovereignty, this only paralyzes ASEAN from making any valid action on crisis such as this. Truly, this is a challenge for ASEAN as it is steering near into becoming a regional community. It is only a challenge for ASEAN as to how it should properly address problems that stretch out to its community whose origins happen to be very domestic(originated from a member state's internal affair) in nature. As it is already in its process of integration, it is then a question. Should ASEAN continue to pursue its traditional norms and values or should it try out new norms that would probably fit more in its phase of integrity? This is a question that can only be answered once we've already reached that point. At this point, ASEAN has to prove to the world that it can take care of its security problems and that it is ready to take itself to a grander scale.

A Brief Discussion on the ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community and a Reaction on its Discussion

A Brief Discussion on the ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community and a Reaction on its Discussion
by Gabrielle Marie Alfon

The ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community represents the human dimension of the ASEAN cooperation, which is more often than not more popularly thought of as merely a regional economic cooperation. While the three communities of ASEAN, namely the Economic Community, the Political Security Community, and the Socio-Cultural Community all come together to create a well-integrated regional cooperation, the Socio-Cultural Community brings the personality, unique culture, and most importantly the people of the region to the forefront. It is concerned with the peoples’ development and protection as a whole, focusing on the individuals of the community. In fact, according to its blueprint, the ASCC envisions the following characteristics: Human Development; Social Welfare and Protection; Social Justice and Rights; Ensuring Environmental Sustainability; Building the ASEAN Identity; and Narrowing the Development Gap.

            This vision of the ASCC is not an easy one to accomplish, considering the varying identities, states of development, and overall circumstances that define each of the ten member states. It is not only the diversity of the aforementioned countries that will surely be an obstacle in achieving the ASCC’s vision, but the scope of this vision as well. When one hears the phrase ‘socio-cultural’, one may unintentionally assume it to refer to merely cultural and identity issues, but the societal issues are just as, or even more, important. The ASCC has leaps and bounds to go through in this regard, such as the promotion of decent work, human resource development, poverty alleviation, and ensuring environmental sustainability to name just a few. The ten member states of the ASEAN will definitely need to cooperate with one another to achieve these ambitious goals.

            Last August 7, Miss Danica Fernandez kindly gave us her time to discuss the ASCC from her perspective and in relation to her thesis which was entitled, “Internationalizing the Sub-National: Prospects for Intra-Regional Sister-City Relations in Fostering the ASEAN Regional Identity”. She discussed how the ASCC Community can not only be localized, but brought down to the individual and his interaction with other individuals in the region. In an increasingly globalized world, even something as simple as playing an online game can foster ties and friendships across the seas and with our fellow ASEAN citizens. I appreciated that Miss Fernandez emphasized that bridging the gap between our cultures did not have to be done at such a formal arena such as conferences, but in informal arenas as well such as social media, competitions, and traveling. It made me realize that everyone can be a diplomat in his or her own way; Miss Fernandez called this ‘citizen diplomacy’. This was refreshing because in International Relations, much of the literature centers on states and non-state actors. In my opinion, this way of thinking is very medieval. In our day and age, which is the technological age, states are not the only means of interaction across borders anymore. Neither is this interaction limited to economic interaction. Now, a tourist from the Philippines can very well shape the views and opinions of locals about Filipinos in general.

            Miss Fernandez did not broach the societal half of the Socio-Cultural whole, but nevertheless, her discussion allowed me to view the ASCC in a different way. I have learned that each and every one of us has a critical part to play in the new ASEAN regional environment.
           

References:
http://www.nti.org/treaties-and-regimes/association-southeast-asian-nations-asean/


Saturday, August 22, 2015

Celebrating Friendship, Cultivating Peace

Celebrating Friendship, Cultivating Peace
By: Shanya Mair Laureen D. Pajao
           
            Last July 30, 2015, our IRFS 141 class celebrated the International Day of Friendship in JW 440, Downtown campus at 3:00 to 4:30 in the afternoon. The programme started with the singing of the Philippine National Anthem and the United Nations Hymn. Next was the report about the International Day of Friendship, which was reported by the representatives of the different groups in class. After that is the most awaited part of all, the food. We had a delicious cake decorated with different country flags. We also had chips paired with iced tea.

            What is the International Friendship Day? It is a celebration of local friendship customs and international bonds. It was proposed by Dr. Ramon Bracho in Paraguay on July 20, 1958 through the Cruzada Mundial de la Amistad or the World Crusade of Friendship.

            In 2011, the United Nations General Assembly proclaimed the International Day of Friendship. They believe that friendship between people, countries, cultures and individuals can inspire peace efforts and build bridges between communities. It puts emphasis on involving young people, as future leaders, in community activities that include different cultures and promote international understanding and respect for diversity. To celebrate the International Day of Friendship the UN invites and encourages governments, international organization, and civil society groups to hold events, activities and initiatives that contribute to the efforts of the international community towards promoting a dialogue among civilizations, solidarity, mutual understanding and reconciliation.

            One of the purposes why we celebrate the friendship day is to support the goals and objectives of the Declaration and Programme of Action on a Culture of Peace and the International Decade for a Culture of Peace and Non-Violence for the Children of the World. Furthermore, it also stresses the importance of having a Culture of Peace, a set of values, attitudes and behaviors that reject violence and endeavour to prevent conflicts by addressing their root causes with a view to solving problems. This is because enormous harm and suffering are caused to children through different forms of violence. The promotion of a culture of peace and non-violence should be instilled in children through education because if children learn to live together in peace and harmony that will contribute to the strengthening of international peace and cooperation.
            Moreover, there is also a Programme of Action on a Culture of Peace, there are eight areas of actions for nations, organizations, and individuals to undertake for a culture of peace to prevail, these are, foster a culture of peace through education, promote sustainable economic and social development, promote respect for all human rights, ensure equality between men and women, foster democratic participation, advance understanding, tolerance, and solidarity, support participatory communication and the free flow of information and knowledge, and promote international peace and security.
             “Since wars begin in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that defences of peace must be constructed.” It is of great importance that the people around the world recognize the relevance of friendship as a noble and valuable sentiment in the lives of human beings around the world. It is through friendship, unity, and cooperation that we cultivate peace.









Reference:

United Nations (2015). International Day of Friendship – July 30. UN.org. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/en/events/friendshipday/. 

Philippine-Japanese Friendship Day: Proposed Resolution

Philippine-Japanese Friendship Day: Proposed Resolution
by Jennalyn Tabada, SUPERPOWER

    Friendship (n.): a friendly feeling or attitude with kindness or help given to someone; a state of mutual trust and support between allied nations (Merriam-Webster Dictionary).

    Like how most friendships start, the Philippines and Japan met at the time when they needed each other to build relations around the world, way back to the 1600s as Japanese merchants and traders had settled in Luzon. In the first half of this century, between 1604 and 1616, intense official trade took place between the two countries, through the Red seal ships systems in which thirty official “Red seal ship” passports were issued between Japan and the Philippines. The Red seal ships were Japanese armed merchant sailing ships bound for Southeast Asian ports with a red-sealed letter issued by the Tokugawa shogunate. This affinity expanded tremendously especially during the American period when Japan was the largest trading partner to the Philippines by 1929.

    However, this friendship was severed when the Japanese forces invaded the Philippine Commonwealth during the World War II. It was in this period of time that much of the Japanese culture became abhorrent when the Filipinos experiences a very cruel occupation by the Japanese which included strict curfew, forced labor, executions, forced educational programs (learning Nihonggo). These gave rise to a lingering anti-Japanese sentiment. After the Philippines was granted independence by the United States in 1946, it was a signatory to the 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty with Japan. And in July 23, 1956, the ratification of the Peace Treaty and Reparations Agreement was concluded and re-established diplomatic relations between both countries. Fifty years later, President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo declared July 23 as Philippines-Japan Friendship Day to mark the 50th anniversary of the normalization of diplomatic relations.

    As soon as the Japanese left, these restrictions went away and it would be years later that their culture would start to influence the Filipino culture. Today, the most notable influence on Filipino culture has been in technology—such as karaoke, videoke, cameras, and anime.

    Strategic partnership between both countries has been strong recently. A bilateral agreement has been established called Philippines-Japan Defense Cooperation Agreement which concerns territorial security with regards to China. Prime Minister Shinzo Abe promised 10 patrol vessels to the Philippine Coast Guard through a loan agreement. Another pact is the Japan-Philippines Economic Partnership Agreement, signed in Finland on September 9, 2006. JPEPA is a bilateral trade agreement that led to the immediate removal of tariffs on certain fruits, vehicles, steel products, electronic appliances, and garments.

    Indeed, Philippines and Japan had their fair share of trying to preserve the rich history of their friendship. But it is without a doubt that both countries enjoy close and vibrant relations.  The Japanese are the 3rd top international visitors in the Philippines with over 500,000 visitors each year, according to the Department of Tourism. As for Filipinos, Japan is their second choice of destination after Hong Kong. It is with great pride that both countries have remained to be close friends despite the diplomatic blunders during the World War II. But that also paved the benchmark of a long lasting friendship between Japan and the Philippines. A proposed resolution hereby follows to improve the celebration of the Philippines-Japan Friendship Day:


PROPOSED RESOLUTION

WHEREAS, in recalling Proclamation No. 854, s. 2005,  declaring July 23, 2006 as Philippine-Japanese Friendship Day to mark the 50th anniversary of the normalization of diplomatic relations between the Philippines and Japan;

WHEREAS, in reaffirming the abovementioned proclamation, the University of San Carlos Political Students major in International Relations and Foreign Service, shall partner with Japanese restaurants in Cebu to celebrate Philippine-Japanese Friendship Day every 23rd of July;

WHEREAS, in line with this celebration, info graphic posters showing a brief history of the friendship between Japan and the Philippines and announcing the aforementioned celebration shall be posted at the Japanese restaurants in Cebu and around the premises of the University of San Carlos;

WHEREAS, the students in Special Topics in International Relations commends this festivity as a way of fostering strong and friendly relations with the Japanese community;

NOW THEREFORE, the Carolinian Circle of Young Diplomats, as moved by Member Jennalyn Tabada, and seconded by Member ________

RESOLVE, to request the students of IRFS 141: Special Topics in International Relations to map out and identify the different Japanese restaurants in Cebu City;

RESOLVED FURTHER, to authorize the Ministry of Documentation of CCYD to furnish copies to this resolution Atty. Archill Niña Faller-Capistrano, CCYD Adviser and IRFS 141 Instructor, for her information and guidance.


Respectfully submitted by:

Jennalyn M. Tabada
AB POSC IRFS 4, SUPERPOWER
References:
(2010). Hisona, Harold. The Cultural Influences of India, China, Arabia and Japan. Philippine Almanac.

(2001). Yoko Nagazumi. Red Seal ships. Japan Historical Society.

(2001). Boxer, C.R. The Christian Century in Japan.

(2005). Official Gazette.  Proclamation No. 854, s. 2005. Retrieved Aug 22 2015 http://www.gov.ph/2005/06/07/proclamation-no-854-s-2005/

(2012). Department of Tourism. Tourism Statistics. Retrieved Aug 22 2015 http://www.visitmyphilippines.com/index.php?title=VisitorStatistics&func=all&pid=39&tbl=1

(2013). Eurasiareview. Japan-Philippine Relations: New Dynamics in Strategic Partnership – Analyis Eurasia Review. Retrieved Aug 22 2015 http://www.eurasiareview.com/05032013-japan-philippine-relations-new-dynamics-in-strategic-partnership-analysis/

(2013). Asia Pacific Universe. Philippines History, Culture, Civilization and Technology, Filipino. Retrieved Aug 22 2015 http://asiapacificunivese.com/pkm/tech.htm

Friendship: Responsibility or Opportunity?

Friendship: Responsibility or Opportunity?
by Samantha F. Villabert

    Summer, barbeque and fireworks come to mind when Americans are asked about the fourth of July. But to Filipinos, it is not just the United States of America’s (USA) independence day. It is also the day we were granted our independence from the USA’s Commonwealth Government after the Second World War. Since then, the Philippines and USA have been friends and allies who maintain closeness that some may call a “special relationship” (The Manila Times, 2014). 

    A celebration was done in honor of this day. It was a two-team alliance effort from Optimizers and Superpower. Picture a room with red, blue, white and yellow decorations and a photobooth, which was beside the food corner, at the back. The celebration started with the national anthem of both countries. Afterwards, we proceeded with the welcoming remarks. It was followed by the history of the friendship day. It all started on December 10, 1989 when the Treaty of Paris was signed. The Philippines was sold by Spain to USA for $20,000,000. Since then, the economy of the Philippines relied on the USA’s. It is believed that democracy, through “Filipinization” and the Commonwealth government, was the greatest legacy of USA to the Philippines; USA influenced us with party politics and free trade relations.

    We also discussed a controversial special issue. The Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals and Transgender (LGBT) Community was soaring with pride as the Supreme Court of USA passed same-sex marriage on June 26, 2015. However, it is “not acceptable” in the Philippines until now and same-sex marriage is still far in the future. Furthermore, we discussed about Filipino influence in the USA. With 3,000,000 Filipino migrants, they are the second largest Asian group. Therefore, it is hard to miss a Filipino store and a kababayan. The reporting continued with notable Filipino-Americans (Fil-Am). Fil-Ams such as Bobby Murphy, co-founder of Snapchat and Cristeta Comerford, White House Executive Chef are making it big in the USA. Also, we tackled some fun facts before ending.


    The last part of the program was a chow down because what better way is there to understand a country than have a taste of their food? While eating, different videos were shown such as how Fil-Ams in USA celebrate the event and how Americans react to Filipino food and culture. The celebration then ended with our instructor giving the closing remarks. All in all it was a successful event. However, there are certain things which we could have done better.


    When something ends, you suddenly realize things that you could have done better. It is like the feeling of knowing what to say after you have already let the words out of your mouth. Opportunely, the Friendship Day is celebrated every year; it is an IRFS legacy to celebrate it during IRFS 141, the special issues class. So what could be done next time? More issues should be involved such as the Visiting Forces Agreement or the South China Sea dispute or the result of next year’s elections in both countries. We should tackle on the current status of our relationship and see if we are gaining, losing or remaining stagnant. It can be celebrated and debated with a bigger audience from IRFS Majors to the Political Science body to the whole Carolinian Community until more and more people will be aware of the event and most of all, the reasons behind it.

    It is true that some Filipinos are more attached to the American dream than others. With USA’s dominance in show business, some Filipinos hope to also experience the American good life they see on their screens. Greencard holders and naturalized citizens even try to petition for their family to join them in USA. Conversely, there are also Filipinos who oppose. Anti-Americanism is the disapproval of American influence. One view might suggest that it is the ideology of enmity when wielded by nationalists who seek to strengthen heir identity (Tidwell, 2007). Tidwell further writes that Fallows (1987) argues that the Philippines is a damaged culture without a strong sense of nationalism. There is a failure in creating a unified Filipino identity. It could be that the Fil-Am relationship is so strong that we lose our sense of patriotism.

    The Philippines celebrates friendship days with her former colonizers. From Spain to USA to Japan, I guess the question now is “Who are the Filipinos?” It is commendable that we maintain relationships with them but what about our own neighboring provinces? Not only should we be thinking of what is out there but also what is within us. In addition to uniting and harmonizing with the Spaniards, Americans and Japanese, I hope we find to do the same things with our fellow Filipinos within our country and around the world. After all, one of the beautiful qualities of friendship is to understand and be understood.


How the U.S. Embassy in the Philippines Celebrates Friendship Day (2010)

U.S. Ambassador Harry K. Thomas Jr. (center) proposes a toast with Philippine Foreign Affairs Sec. Alberto Romulo (left) and Dean of Diplomatic Corps Arch. Edward Joseph Adams (right). In his remarks, Ambassador Thomas said “…Great things are possible, but hard work lies ahead. We stand ready, as a friend, to assist.” 

Around 800 people from the American Embassy, the diplomatic corps, the Philippine government, non-government organizations and other guests attended the reception.

The 2010 Fourth of July reception was capped by a grand fireworks display to the delight of the guests.

How Filipinos in America Celebrate Friendship Day








Los Angeles, 1 October 2012 – The very first full-size statue of Dr. Jose P. Rizal, Philippine National Hero, in Southern California was finally unveiled in a grand ceremony held on 29 September 2012 at the International Sculpture Garden located in Carson City, California. 

How we celebrated the friendship day










References:

Catseye. “The American Occupation”. Camperspoint Philippines. 

August 11, 2004. http://www.camperspoint.com/The-American-Occupation. 

Fallows, J. (1987). A Damaged Culture: A New Philippines? Atlantic Monthly. Retrieved from http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/1987/11/a-damaged-culture-a-new-philippines/7414/

Manila Bulletin. (2015, July 4). Editorial: Philippine-American Friendship Day | mb.com.ph | Philippine News. Retrieved August 22, 2015, from http://www.mb.com.ph/editorial-philippine-american-friendship-day/

O'Connor, B., & Tidwell, A. (2007). Anti-Americanism in the Philippines. InComparative perspectives (pp. 259-302). Retrieved from https://books.google.com.ph/books?id=Jq4FMb47AnEC&pg=PA259&lpg=PA259&dq=anti-americanism+in+the+philippines+alan+tidwell&source=bl&ots=KlFVhaFu2-&sig=90TLV7HzzsiHOyVk_grcRHgtZkE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CBwQ6AEwAGoVChMInM_fo_e8xwIVzAmOCh1n1Q68#v=onepage&q=anti-americanism%20in%20the%20philippines%20alan%20tidwell&f=false

Philippine Consulate LA. (2012). Retrieved from http://www.philippineconsulatela.org/PRs%202012/080-2012PR-Rizal%20Monument%20Unveiled%20in%20Carson.htm

The Manila Times. (2014, July 3). Philippine-American Friendship Day - The Manila Times OnlineThe Manila Times Online. Retrieved August 22, 2015, from http://www.manilatimes.net/philippine-american-friendship-day/108883/

The ‘Philippine-American Friendship Day’. (2013, July 4). Retrieved July 1, 2015, from Tempo News in the Flash: http://www.tempo.com.ph/2013/07/04/the-philippine- american-friendship-day/#.VZPW7kYT7_I

Veniles, C. J. (2013). Immigrants outnumber OFWs. Philippine Daily Inquirer, 1-3.




Photos From:


FAFD Virginia Beach. (n.d.). Fil-Am Friendship Day. Retrieved from www.filamfriendshipdayva.com/


U.S. Embassy. (2010). U.S. Embassy Celebrates Independence Day and Philippine-American Friendship Day | Manila, Philippines - Embassy of the United States. Retrieved from http://manila.usembassy.gov/galleries/u2.s.-embassy-celebrates-independence-day-and-philippine-american-friendship-day